hcloud_list_route_tables

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations present, the description must convey behavioral traits. 'List route tables' is too vague—it does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, whether it returns all route tables, or any pagination behavior. This leaves the agent uninformed about key behavioral aspects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (three words) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices completeness. While there is no wasted text, the brevity does not earn its place as it omits critical information that could aid tool selection.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's three parameters and lack of output schema, the description fails to provide enough context. It does not explain what route tables are, what response format to expect, or any usage constraints beyond parameter details already in the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (region, vpc_id, limit), so the schema already documents meaning. The description adds no additional parameter context, meeting the baseline expectation without further value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List route tables' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (route tables), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by specifying a unique resource type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to other list tools like hcloud_list_subnets or hcloud_list_vpcs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.